Main menu

Post navigation

The Designed Discriptions of Neo-Darwinism

Despite some claims of the ones who like to argue about the term “evolution” as only exclusive to nature, proponents of evolution in the media display much more broad definitions of it which includes an unthinking process has a “purpose and design.”

One of the more funnier descriptions of evolution is how it’s suppose to save or even sink a car business, namely GM. In Live Science, it states and I quote…

“There are many forces of evolution, but natural selection, biologists feel, is the most important. It works like this: All sorts of variation is produced (think SUV, compacts, vans, and sedans) and then the environment (think free market) selects for some and ignores others. The ignored ones are dropped out of the gene pool (think showroom floor or metal recycling plant), and too bad for them.”

“In this biological (or economic) system, only the best adapted survive. So what if evolution is presented with something more sleek, in cool colors, or with tinted windows — if it takes too much energy (gas) to use, it will be selected against.”

“Natural selection operates on individuals, or individual automobiles companies because not all of them are going bankrupt, and that affects the future of the total gene pool, or automobile business. That’s how biological life, and capitalist economies, have been shaped over generations.”

This news article also states, humans are not “designed” for caring about people we don’t know, who loose their jobs. We also lack talent to plan for the future according to this silly explanation of evolution because of our supposed hominid history which contained unpredictable and uncontrollable environments. This seems to overlook the fact that animals like birds and squirrels are very good long term planners.

In science daily, evolution is described as having a “toolkit” to accomplish various tasks time and time again…

“Evolution has a ‘toolkit’ and when it needs to do a particular job, such as see light, it uses the same toolkit again and again,” explains lead author Margaret McFall-Ngai, a professor of medical microbiology and immunology at the UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health (SMPH). “In this case, the light organ, which comes from different tissues than the eye during development, uses the same proteins as the eye to see light.”

So an unthinking process knows what to use and how to use it over and over again? Why do humans have a brain if nature can supposedly do that?

Because of their beliefs dwelling in a black box, they plagiarize intelligent design words and contradict their own core beliefs. Yes, we see design, but it’s really an unthinking process designing it…lol…No, it’s a real designer namely God who came up with some of the most amazing things we see in nature today.

“And no, we do *not* see design in nature.” correction, YOU do not see design in nature, rational people do.

Michael, Interesting post as usual. It is funny how evolutionists redefine evolution to suit the situation they are in at the moment. It could be a debate, a research article, a pop culture report or casual conversation. I guess the theory of evolution evolves to help them justify their beliefs.

mcoville says: “correction, YOU do not see design in nature, rational people do.”
I’ll have to correct your correction: we do *not* see design (as in design that was designed by a designer) in nature. Nowhere. I’ll just ignore you calling me irrational, as I am anything but irrational. Except when Holland is playing Germany, of course.

Evolution is *not* a belief, it is a scientific theory. And scientists do not just redefine something to suit the situation, that is not how science is done. It is true though that any scientific theory evolves: that is also the nature of science. One starts with an idea, which (if all goes well) becomes a hypothesis, and then a theory if it survives the tests thrown at it. But even then any scientific theory still evolves, although typically very little. Cosmology, for example, has been evolving a bit over the last 10 years, with the introduction of dark energy (which is NOT the same as dark matter!), but the basic theory (expanding universe etc.) is still there.

But Eelco, evolutionists redefine the definition of “theory” to justify their belief in evolution all the time.

What is the difference between the Theory of Evolution and String Theory? As far as scientific theory is concerned in the scientific method, not in comparing theories.

“we do *not* see design (as in design that was designed by a designer) in nature. Nowhere.” You have to define the “we” you are talking about because I know a lot of people that would disagree with you.

@mcoville:
“But Eelco, evolutionists redefine the definition of “theory” to justify their belief in evolution all the time.”
Again, scientists do not ‘belief’ in evolution. Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. This is getting tedious.
And of course scientists do *not* redefine the definition of ‘theory’. What would be the point of that ?

With ‘we’ (in we do not see design in nature) I mean all people who have observed nature.
Surely you’ll find people who claim to ‘see design’ in nature: sometimes things *appear* designed, which later turn out to have a perfectly natural explanation. But sometimes the explanation is not known yet, in which case one should just say “we don’t know” instead of jumping to conclusions, like “it is designed because there is no other way of forming this !”.
A statement such as ‘it has been designed’ needs to be scientifically proven (i.e. made plausible using the scientific method), just like a natural cause needs to be scientifically proven (i.e. made plausible using the scientific method).
If neither of the two can be done, file it under “we don’t know”. That is more honest, in my opinion.
Please note that I particularly stressed that I want scientific proof. You, as a religious person, might not require that. That is also fine, but at least be honest about it!

Surely you’ll find people who claim to ’see design’ in nature: sometimes things *appear* designed, which later turn out to have a perfectly natural explanation. But sometimes the explanation is not known yet, in which case one should just say “we don’t know” instead of jumping to conclusions, like “it is designed because I can think of no other way of forming this !”.

I you could actually *proof* that there is no other way to form something than by some supernatural cause, then you have something to go on. But this has not been done so far. Not at all. Normally someone claiming a designer only says that because he cannot come up with a solution, but not because he can prove that there fundamentally cannot be a solution.
That is what I wanted to say.

Two answers to you:
1. A theory and a fact are different things, as explained many times, so a theory cannot be a scientific fact. There are scientific facts (like the facts of evolution) that one attempts to describe and/or interpret with a scientific theory (like the theory of evolution).

As for string theory: this is still a very young theory, and already branching out into superstrings and braneworlds …
It is therefore much less developed and tested (which in the case of string theory is very hard anyway) than the theory of evolution, which is older and better tested.

But they are both scientific theories. And of course you are welcome to falsify either or both of them, or come up with alternatives. As long as you follow the scientific methods, otherwise you are not doing science. Which you are entitled to, of course, but should then be honest about.

2. As I said before, I do not belief in scientific theories. I test them, and treat them as the best possible description of the scientific facts. And when new facts arrive (people keep on measuring things, look deeper into the universe, dig deeper in the ground …), theories get adapted, or falsified, and new theories are sometimes proposed as well.
The theory of evolution is currently by far the best description of how biological species formed and evolved (excluding the actual beginning of life itself: that is another field of biology). That is not the same as saying I ‘belief’ it to be ‘true’.

1. So the definition of a scientific theory changes depending on how you want to use it?

1b. Yes there are some facts within the theory of evolution, but that does not make the theory itself a fact. Just as there are some unproven hypothesis that some evolutionists like to package together with the theory of evolution and that does not make the entire theory false.

2.”The theory of evolution is currently by far the best description of how biological species formed and evolved (excluding the actual beginning of life itself: that is another field of biology).” That is your opinion. You believe your opinion is true. You do not know this to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

Side note: Thank you Eelco for the rational discussing and not resorting to name calling and character attacks. I hope you take my questions as true inquiry and not as an attack on you. I am would like to better understand how you think through the scientific method to come to your conclusion. If there was more open discussion on the topic of evolution in this tone I think we all could learn more.

@mcoville:
“1. So the definition of a scientific theory changes depending on how you want to use it?”
No, it does not. I’ve not said that at all – I just said that theories and facts are different things. Theories attempts to describe, interpret and even explain the facts. They are not the same thing.

“That is your opinion. You believe your opinion is true. You do not know this to be true beyond reasonable doubt.”

It is my opinion, sure. My scientific opinion.
But I do not believe my opinion to be ‘true’. I test all theories, and take the one that fits best as the best possible theory for now. But I do not hold it for ‘true’. Scientists can never prove something to be absolutely true. So I guess I would always assume that something is probably true if there is good evidence for it, like the theory of evolution, but I would not say that for string theory, where the evidence is nowhere near as good.
And ‘true beyond reasonable doubt’ is something for the courts, not for science. Remember that evidence as used in courts is not the same as scientific evidence.

“If there was more open discussion on the topic of evolution in this tone I think we all could learn more.”
Indeed !
Open discussion is what one should have, but the question always is how much time to spend on old theories and current ones. You could treat ‘creationism’ as an old theory from the times our current body of evidence was not available. Most civilizations have a creation myth (or theory, if you have very limited evidence to work on). That’s how I see it. But one can never completely discard any theory, so this is why I still spend some (small) fraction on my time on old theories. I do read creationist books (just bought one by Paul Garner), but the question of how much time one should spend on this is always at the back of my mind, as I still have seen no scientific evidence at all for creationism. Nothing at all.

And there is so much evidence for evolution, very beautiful evidence as well, which I really enjoy reading about. Sean B. Carroll’s books are very nicely written (not that that makes them any more reliable, as Behe’s books are also very well written, and the science is very obviously with Carroll).

So would you agree that people like Richard Dawkins that says the theory of evolution is a fact are wrong?

And by putting the word “scientific” in front of your opinion does not make it anymore or less a reliable opinion, it is still an opinion.

“And there is so much evidence for evolution, very beautiful evidence as well, which I really enjoy reading about.”, but this is an opinion. I see so-much evidence for creation, very beautiful evidence, and I really enjoy reading about it as well, this does not make me more right than you.

All evidence I have seen for evolution is disputable. Can you show me one peace of evidence for evolution that is indisputable? If not, then the theory of evolution is disputable.

@mcoville:
I don’t think Dawkins would say something like that, or if he did, he simply said something wrong. He is a human being, after all. And what he says or does not say has no influence on the theory of evolution, of course. Same with Darwin, Collins, and whoever else you’d like to quote. Think for yourself ! Of course you can learn something from these people, even if they say something wrong (which of course they do, like everybody else).

The word ‘scientific’ before ‘evidence’ is important, as it defines the type of evidence I’m talking about. Scientific evidence is not the same as evidence used in courts, for example.

Saying that evidence is beautiful is not important, of course. That is just a estethic opinion (which is personal), not a scientific one.

Then you say:
“All evidence I have seen for evolution is disputable. Can you show me one peace of evidence for evolution that is indisputable? If not, then the theory of evolution is disputable.”
Well, it is hard to show evidence in a blog (pictures and all that), but the book of Carroll is full of DNA evidence, which is indisputable as a fact. But again, facts and theory are not the same, so even if the fact are indisputable, the theory remains disputable at all times. Again, that is how science works.

It is pretty much indisputable that at night we see small lights in the sky. The existence of these small lights is indisputable (just like the DNA evidence is indisputable: just ask any court that uses it as ‘scientific evidence’ besides the usual testimonials etc.), but the theory that tells you what these lights are and where they come from was disputed for some time. Little holes in the sky ? A long time ago people have been thinking that (without disputing the fact that the little lights themselves exist !), but now we adopt the (may I say more reliable ?) theory that these are stars, just like our sun. Few people would dispute this now, but as a theory it could still be wrong somehow. And not all lights on the sky actually are stars, after all.

I hope this example helps a little. I took stars as this does not seem to upset anyone, while evolution apparently does.

I do understand the difference between evidence and scientific evidence, my comment was directed to when you said “It is my opinion, sure. My scientific opinion.”, but that is not a big deal, just wanted to clarify something.

I would be interested in reading the book by Carroll, any suggestion on which to start with?

And I think you and I agree on the statement that if one part of a theory is found to be false, the whole of the theory is not false, and that the part of the theory that is false can be adjusted to meet the evidence we have at hand without changing the theory as a whole.

@mcoville:
The book written by Carroll which I am currently reading during my commutes is called “The making of the fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution”.
I think it is his latest. I don’t like the word ‘ultimate’ in the title, as that is overstating things a little (the publisher might have something to do with that …), but I do like the book.
It lays out the DNA evidence for evolution, which I personally find stronger than the fossil evidence. It is well-written (which does not automatically makes it right, of course), and fairly convincing. But you should make up your own mind.

Your statement on theories I do subscribe to. It is very rare for a whole theory to fail (unless it is really wacky).